6/27/2004 09:18:09 PM|||Nathan Moore|||

The primacy of the jury has been further affirmed this past week. The repercussions of the decision handed down last Thursday by the SCOTUS, Blakely v. Washington, will be felt nationwide.

How Appealing has a good litany of easy-to-read articles on the subject. The actual opinion can be found here.

I just got around to reading the opinion today, but have not yet read the dissents. I, along with thousands of other criminal attorneys, are rethinking some strategies in relation to our state sentencing guildines. Tennessee is one of the states that will indeed feel the effects of Blakely.

In a nutshell, judges can no longer enhance sentences on facts not found by a jury. How this applies to sentencing hearings is not quite clear, but seems to require a jury to determine the existence of enhancing factors unless the jury is waived by the defendant. In the majority opinion, Scalia did confirm that defendants could waive the jury aspect to sentencing, just as they can opt for a bench trial. In short, it adds additional chips to the plea bargain process and in the end will be good for defendants, and shift the burden more to the state (where it belongs, and where too often judges tend to attempt to shift the burden back to the defendant). Additionally, all findings of fact relating to sentence enhancement must be found beyond a reasonable doubt. Indictments will be affected as well.

I will blog more on the subject as the practical effects of Blakely become clearer.

|||108838986957151657|||Juries Strike Back